teacher keys effectiveness system - georgia · students’ engagement in ... strategies do not...

6/1/2014 6/1/2014

Teacher and Leader Keys Effectiveness Systems

T K E S L K E S

Bethany LeMoyne Evaluation System Specialist

[email protected] 585.749.5780

6/1/2014 6/1/2014

Implementation Cohorts for the Teacher Keys Effectiveness System

• 2011-2012 – Cohort 1, Race to the Top Districts: 26, Pilot

• 2012-2013 – Cohort 1, Full Implementation – Cohort 2, Volunteer Districts: 20; Volunteer IIA Grant Districts: 9;

SIG/Priority/Relocation Schools: 21; and Study Districts: 6, Pilot

• 2013-2014 – Cohort 1: Full Implementation – Cohort 2: Combination Full Implementation and Pilot – Cohort 3: New Volunteer Districts: 120, Pilot

• 2011-2014 Institutions of Higher Education

• 2014 -2015 Full Implementation - Statewide

2

6/1/2014 6/1/2014

House Bill 244

• Passed during 2013 legislative session

• Mandates use of single, state-wide evaluation system for teachers of record

• Multiple observations required

• Student growth contributes at least 50%

• Contracts must be offered by May 15

3

6/1/2014 6/1/2014

House Bill 244 • Feedback must be provided for all observations

within 5 working days

• Evaluations will yield one of four explicit (TEM) ratings: – Exemplary, Proficient, Needs Development and Ineffective

• Evaluators must be trained and credentialed using an approved program

• All components of a teacher’s evaluation are confidential

4

6/1/2014

5

Teacher and Leader Keys Effectiveness System

Primary Purposes

• Optimize student learning and growth

• Improve the quality of classroom instruction

• Support the continuous growth of teachers and

leader

6/1/2014

TKES

6/1/2014 6/1/2014

Teacher Keys Effectiveness System

7


Generates a Teacher Effectiveness Measure

Student Growth

Teachers of Tested Subjects Student Growth Percentiles

Surveys of Instructional Practice

Grades 3-5, Grades 6-8, Grades 9-12

Teacher Assessment on Performance Standards

Observations and Documentation

Teachers of Non-Tested Subjects LEA-Developed, DOE-Approved

Student Learning Objectives

Support and Documentation

6/1/2014 6/1/2014


8



Student Growth









6/1/2014 6/1/2014

TAPS Domains and Standards Planning

1. Professional Knowledge 2. Instructional Planning

Instructional Delivery 3. Instructional Strategies 4. Differentiated Instruction

Assessment Of And For Learning 5. Assessment Strategies

6. Assessment Uses Learning Environment

7. Positive Learning Environment

8. Academically Challenging Environment Professionalism and Communication

9. Professionalism

10. Communication

5 Domains

10 Standards

6/1/2014 6/1/2014

Instructional Delivery

Performance Standard 3: Instructional Strategies The teacher promotes student learning by using research-based instructional strategies relevant to the content to engage students in active learning and to facilitate the students’ acquisition of key knowledge and skills.

Sample Performance Indicators Examples may include, but are not limited to: The teacher: • Engages students in active learning and maintains interest. • Builds upon students’ existing knowledge and skills. • Reinforces learning goals consistently throughout the lesson. • Uses a variety of research-based instructional strategies and resources

DOMAIN

PERFORMANCE STANDARD

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

TAPS Main Components

Level IV In addition to meeting the requirements

for Level III…

Level III Level III is the expected level of

performance. Level II Level I

The teacher continually facilitates students’ engagement in metacognitive learning, higher-order thinking skills, and application of learning in current and relevant ways. (Teachers rated at Level IV continually seek ways to serve as role models or teacher leaders.)

The teacher consistently promotes student learning by using research-based instructional strategies relevant to the content to engage students in active learning, and to facilitate the students’ acquisition of key skills.

The teacher inconsistently uses research-based instructional strategies. The strategies used are sometimes not appropriate for the content area or for engaging students in active learning or for the acquisition of key skills.

The teacher does not use research-based instructional strategies, nor are the instructional strategies relevant to the content area. The strategies do not engage students in active learning or acquisition of key skills.

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

RUBRIC

6/1/2014 6/1/2014

Rating Performance

Performance Standard 1: Professional Knowledge Level IV

In addition to meeting the requirements for Level III


performance.

Level II Level I

The teacher continually demonstrates extensive content and pedagogical knowledge, enriches the curriculum, and guides others in enriching the curriculum. (Teachers rated as Level IV continually seek ways to serve as role models or teacher leaders.)

The teacher consistently demonstrates an understanding of the curriculum, subject content, pedagogical knowledge, and the needs of students by providing relevant learning experiences.

The teacher inconsistently demonstrates understanding of curriculum, subject content, pedagogical knowledge, and student needs, or lacks fluidity in using the knowledge in practice.

The teacher inadequately demonstrates understanding of curriculum, subject content, pedagogical knowledge and student needs, or does not use the knowledge in practice.

Totality of Evidence and Consistency of Practice

6/1/2014 6/1/2014

TAPS Flow Process

Orientation

Self-Assessment

Pre-Evaluation Conference

Formative Assessment Process Observation Documentation

Formative Assessment Surveys of Instructional Practice

Mid-Year Conference

Summative Performance

Evaluation

Summative Conference

Familiarization

July-August September-April Mid-year Conference: December-January

Survey Window: October-March

April-May May 15 DOE

deadline

6/1/2014 6/1/2014



Student Growth










6/1/2014

Research on Survey Data

• Student ratings of teachers are a significant predictor of student achievement.

• Student ratings of teachers are typically a better predictor of student achievement than teacher or administrator ratings.

Sources: Faucette, Ball, & Ostrander, 1995; Stronge & Ostrander, 2006; Wilkerson, Manatt, Rogers, & Maughan, 2000

14

6/1/2014

Sample Survey Items by Level

3-5 Survey Item Yes Sometimes No

My teacher wants me to ask questions about what we are learning. 2 1 0

6-8 Survey Item Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly

Disagree

My teacher encourages me to participate in class, rather than just sitting and listening.

3 2 1 0

9-12 Survey Item Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly

Disagree

My teacher encourages me to be an active participant in class, rather than just sitting and listening.

3 2 1 0

6/1/2014


16



Student Growth









6/1/2014

Growth and Achievement

Growth • Measures a

student’s progress between two points in time.

• Compares a student’s performance to his/her own prior performance.

Achievement •Measures a student’s performance at a single point of time. •Compares a student’s performance to a standard.

A more

complete picture

of student learning.

17

6/1/2014

Two Measures of Growth

Non-Tested Subjects • Utilize Student Learning

Objectives • Generated based on

performance on pre- and post-assessment measures

• Will be calculated at the district level for all state funded courses without a standardized test

18

Tested Subjects • Utilize Student Growth

Percentiles • Generated based on CRCT

and EOCT performance • Will be calculated at the

state level

6/1/2014


19



Student Growth









6/1/2014

How Percentiles Help Us Understand Growth

20

16% 50%

If a student goes from scoring better than 16% of all students in grade 4 to scoring better than 50% of students in grade 5, we would have evidence that growth had occurred.

6/1/2014

What we miss if we focus on the proficiency bar…

21

16% 50%

If the red line marks the cut point for “Meets,” this is a student who was below “Meets” each year. There is clear evidence that great progress has been made.

6/1/2014

2012 SGP = 1 2011 4th Grade Math Scale Score = 990 2012 5th Grade Math Scale Score = 847




All students can demonstrate all levels of growth – regardless of their achievement level

22

6/1/2014

Student Growth Levels

• Low (1-34), Typical (35-65), and High (66-99) • Levels were set using information about the

interaction between student growth and status-based achievement – A student who demonstrates low growth generally will

regress academically (i.e., not maintain his/her current level of achievement)

– A student who demonstrates typical growth generally will maintain or improve academically

– A student who demonstrates high growth generally will make greater improvement academically

23

6/1/2014 6/1/2014


24



Student Growth









6/1/2014 6/1/2014

District-wide measurable, long-term academic SMART goals set to determine student growth

Generated by student

performance between two points in time

Aligned to the course’s required

curriculum

Demonstration of the teacher’s impact on student learning

What is a Student Learning Objective (SLO)?

25

6/1/2014 26

Overview of the SLO Process

Teacher administers pre- assessments and shares data with

school leader

Teaching and learning strategies implemented and shared with school

leader

Teacher and school leader

monitor progress through a formative process

School leader and teacher

determine SLO attainment

based on post-assessment

Beginning of Course August - May

Data submission to

GaDOE

6/1/2014 27

From August 2014 to May 2015, 100% of American Government and Civics students will improve their knowledge of the principles of democracy, the Constitution, and rules of law as measured by the Mountain School System American Government and Civics SLO Assessments. Students will increase from their pre-assessment scores to their post-assessment scores as follows: The minimum expectation for individual student growth is based on the formula which requires each student to grow by increasing his/her score by 35% of his/her potential growth. Pre-Assessment Score + [(100 – Pre-Assessment Score) * Expected Growth] = Target. Example using 40 on a Pre-Assessment: 40 + [(100 - 40) *.35] 40 + [(60) * .35] 40 + [21] = 61 A score of 61 is the expected growth target for the post-assessment. Students increasing their score by at least 60% of their potential growth would be demonstrating high growth. A score of 76 or above is the high growth target.

High School Social Studies SLO

6/1/2014

SLO Evaluation Rubric Level IV Level III Level II Level I

The work of the teacher results in exceptional student growth. Fifty percent (50%) of the students demonstrated high growth on the SLO and no more than ten (10%) percent demonstrated low growth on the SLO.

The work of the teacher results in appropriate student growth. Eighty percent (80%) or more students demonstrated expected and/or high growth on the SLO.

The work of the teacher does not result in appropriate student growth. Between seventy-nine percent (79%) and fifty percent (50%) of students demonstrated expected and/or high growth on the SLO.

The work of the teacher results in minimal student growth. Forty nine percent (49%) or less of the students demonstrated expected and/ or high growth on the SLO.

28

6/1/2014 6/1/2014


29



Student Growth









6/1/2014 6/1/2014

TEM: Teacher Effectiveness Measure

6/1/2014

Dr. John D. Barge, State School Superintendent “Making Education Work for All Georgians” www.gadoe.org

What do TEM rating levels look like?

A TEM rating will fall into one of four rating levels.

10/10/2014 31

6/1/2014


What makes up a TEM rating?

TAPS

Student Growth

Teacher Effectiveness

Measure

10/10/2014 32

6/1/2014


TAPS Standard Ratings

Each of the ten Performance Standards will be rated using the following scale:

Performance Standard

Rating Point Value

Level IV 3

Level III 2

Level II 1

Level I 0

10/10/2014 33

Please note: A maximum point value of 3 may be earned for each standard.

6/1/2014


TAPS Overall Ratings An overall TAPS rating is calculated by adding the point values for each of the ten Performance Standards and comparing the sum to the following rating levels to determine a final rating:

TAPS Rating TAPS Score Range

Level IV 27-30

Level III 17-26

Level II 7-16

Level I 0-6

10/10/2014 34

6/1/2014


What do these numbers look like in practice?

Performance Standard Rating Value

Professional Knowledge Level III 2

Instructional Planning Level III 2

Instructional Strategies Level II 1

Differentiated Instruction Level II 1

Assessment Strategies Level II 1

Assessment Uses Level III 2

Positive Learning Environment Level III 2

Academically Challenging Environment Level II 1

Professionalism Level IV 3

Communication Level III 2

TOTAL (Overall TAPS Summative Rating) Level III 17

35 10/10/2014

6/1/2014


Student Growth: SGP Rating Levels

Mean Growth Percentile Rating Levels

Mean Growth Percentile Score Range

Level IV > 65

Level III > 40 AND <=65

Level II >= 30 AND <=40

Level I < 30

36 10/10/2014

6/1/2014


Student Growth: SLO Rating Levels

SLO Rating Levels SLO Scale

Level IV >= 90% High Growth and Expected Growth AND >= 50% High Growth

Level III >= 80% High Growth and Expected Growth

Level II >= 50% High Growth and Expected Growth

Level I < 50% High Growth and Expected Growth

37 10/10/2014

6/1/2014 6/1/2014

Combined Student Growth Rating

Example: If a leader had 240 SGP results and 160 SLO results, and ratings of Levels III and II, respectively, the following calculation will be used:

MGP SLO

Rating: 3 (III) Rating: 2 (II)

240 student measures 160 student measures

3*240 student measures= 720 2*160 student measures = 320

(720+320)/(240+160) = 1040/400

Student Growth Score = 2.6, rounded to 3 (III)

38 10/10/2014

6/1/2014


TEM Decision Table

Overall Student Growth Rating

IV Needs Development Proficient Exemplary Exemplary

III Needs Development Proficient Proficient Exemplary

II Ineffective Needs Development

Needs Development Proficient

I Ineffective Ineffective Needs Development

Needs Development

I II III IV

Overall TAPS Summative Rating

39 10/10/2014

6/1/2014 6/1/2014

LKES

6/1/2014


Leader Keys Effectiveness System

Generates a Leader Effectiveness Measure

Leader Assessment on Performance Standards

Performance Goal Setting Documentation of Practice

Governance and Leadership

Climate Survey Student Attendance

Retention of Effective Teachers

Student Growth and Academic Achievement

Student Growth Percentiles LEA Developed, DOE Approved Student Learning Objectives

Achievement Gap Reduction


6/1/2014

LAPS Domains and Standards School Leadership

1. Instructional Leadership

2. School Climate

Organizational Leadership

3. Planning and Assessment

4. Organizational Management

Human Resources Management

5. Human Resources Leadership

6. Teacher/Staff Evaluation

Professionalism and Communication

7. Professionalism

8. Communication & Community Relations

5 Domains

10 Standards

6/1/2014

School Leadership

Performance Standard 1: Instructional Leadership The leader fosters the success of all students by facilitating the development, communication, implementation, and evaluation of a shared vision of teaching and learning that leads to school improvement.

Sample Performance Indicators Examples may include, but are not limited to: The leader: • Articulates a vision and works collaboratively with staff, students, parents, and other stakeholders to develop a

mission and programs consistent with the district’s strategic plan. • Analyzes current academic achievement data and instructional strategies to make appropriate educational decisions

to improve classroom instruction, increase student achievement, and improve overall school effectiveness.

DOMAIN

PERFORMANCE STANDARD

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

LAPS Main Components

Level IV In addition to meeting the requirements

for Level III…


performance. Level II Level I

The leader actively and continually employs innovative and effective leadership strategies that maximize student learning and result in a shared vision of teaching and learning that reflects excellence. (Leaders rated as Level IV continually seek ways to serve as role models and collaborative leaders.)

The leader consistently fosters the success of all students by facilitating the development, communication, implementation, and evaluation of a shared vision of teaching and learning that leads to school improvement.

The leader inconsistently fosters the success of students by facilitating the development, communication, implementation, or evaluation of a shared vision of teaching and learning that leads to school improvement.

The leader does not foster the success of all students by facilitating the development, communication, implementation, or evaluation of a shared vision of teaching and learning that leads to school improvement.

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

RUBRIC

6/1/2014

LAPS Flow Process

Orientation

Self-Assessment

Pre-Evaluation

Conference

Formative Assessment Process Documentation of Practice Observation

Progress towards Performance Goal attainment Governance and Leadership Formative Assessment

Mid-Year Conference

Summative Performance

Evaluation

Summative Conference

Familiarization

July-August September-April Mid-year Conference: December-January

Survey Window: October-March

April-May May 15 DOE

deadline

Performance

Goal Setting

6/1/2014













6/1/2014

Governance & Leadership

• Climate Surveys

• Student Attendance

• Retention of Effective Teachers

6/1/2014












6/1/2014


Focal Group Lowest 25% High-Need Students/Lowest achieving students

Gap

Reference Group

Comparison Point Constant/Stability State’s Mean Scores

Difference in student

performance

6/1/2014













6/1/2014

LEM: Leader Effectiveness Measure

6/1/2014

What do LEM rating levels look like?

A LEM rating will fall into one of four rating levels:

10/10/2014 52

6/1/2014

What makes up a LEM rating?

LAPS Summative

Leader Effectiveness

Measure

10/10/2014 53

Student Growth

Achievement Gap

6/1/2014

LAPS Standard Ratings

Each of the 8 Performance Standards will be rated using the following scale:

Performance Standard

Rating Point Value

Level IV 3

Level III 2

Level II 1

Level I 0

10/10/2014 54

6/1/2014

LAPS Overall Ratings An overall LAPS rating is calculated by adding the point values for each of the 8 Performance Standards and comparing the sum to the following rating levels to determine a final rating:

LAPS Rating LAPS Score Range

Level IV 22-24

Level III 14-21

Level II 6-13

Level I 0-5

10/10/2014 55

6/1/2014

What do these numbers look like in practice?

Performance Standard Rating Value

Instructional Leadership III 2

School Climate III 2

Planning and Assessment III 2

Organizational Management II 1

Human Resources Management II 1

Teacher/Staff Evaluation III 2

Professionalism IV 3

Communication and Community Relations II 1

TOTAL (Overall LAPS Summative Rating) III 14

56 10/10/2014

6/1/2014

Student Growth: SGP Rating Levels

57 10/10/2014

Mean Growth Percentile Rating Levels Mean Growth Percentile Score Range

Level IV MeanGP > 60

Level III MeanGP >45 and < = 60

Level II MeanGP >=35 and <=45

Level I MeanGP <35

6/1/2014

Student Growth: SLO Rating Levels

SLO Rating Levels SLO Scale

Level IV >= 90% High Growth and Expected Growth AND >= 50% High Growth

Level III >= 80% High Growth and Expected Growth

Level II >= 50% High Growth and Expected Growth

Level I < 50% High Growth and Expected Growth

58 10/10/2014

6/1/2014

Combined Student Growth Rating

Example: If a leader had 240 SGP results and 160 SLO results, and ratings of Levels III and II, respectively, the following calculation will be used:

MGP SLO

Rating: 3 (III) Rating: 2 (II)

240 student measures 160 student measures

3*240 student measures= 720 2*160 student measures = 320

(720+320)/(240+160) = 1040/400

Student Growth Score = 2.6, rounded to 3 (III)

59 10/10/2014

6/1/2014

Achievement Gap Reduction: Gap Change & Size Rubrics

Gap Change Score

0.05 or greater 1

-0.04 – 0.04 2

-0.15 – -0.05 3

Less than -0.15 4

Gap Size Score

1.2 or greater 1

0.9 – 1.19 2

0.5 – 0.89 3

Less than 0.5 4

60 10/10/2014

6/1/2014

Achievement Gap Reduction Example

Subject Gap Size Score Gap Change Score Final Subject Score

Reading 4 3 4

ELA 2 3 3

Math 3 4 4

Science 1 2 2

Social Studies 3 3 3

Average of Final Subject Scores: 3.2, rounds to 3 Level III

61 10/10/2014

6/1/2014

LEM Decision Table Overall LAPS Summative Rating

Achievement Gap I II III IV

Overall Student Growth

Rating

IV

IV ND P E E

III ND P E E

II ND P P E

I ND ND P P

III

IV ND P P E

III ND P P P

II ND ND P P

I ND ND P P

II

IV ND ND P P

III ND ND ND P

II ND ND ND ND

I I ND ND ND

I

IV I ND ND ND

III I ND ND ND

II I I ND ND

I I I I ND

10/10/2014 62

6/1/2014

TLE Electronic Platform

6/1/2014

For further Information, contact: [email protected]

Avis King, Deputy Superintendent, Office of School Improvement [email protected]

Cindy Saxon, Associate Superintendent, Division of Teacher/Leader Effectiveness [email protected]

Melinda Moe, Program Manager, TLE-TKES/LKES Implementation [email protected]

Michele Purvis, Program Manager, TLE-Student Learning Objectives [email protected]

Keisla Tisdel, Program Manager, TLE-Evaluation, Data, & Documentation

64

mailto:[email protected]





teacher keys effectiveness system - georgia · students’ engagement in ... strategies do not...

Documents